Opinion
Case No. 4:19-cv-02897-JAR
09-25-2020
ADRIANNE JONES a/k/a ADRIANNE HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPT. OF EDUCATION, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court in this closed matter is Defendant's Motion to Strike Amended Complaint. (Doc. 19). In her initial complaint, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, claimed that Defendants were unlawfully attempting to collect student debt. (Doc. 4). On March 30, 2020, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 12). In accordance with the Court's order, Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff subsequently brought a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14) which was denied by this Court on August 26, 2020. (Doc. 17).
Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint which is virtually identical to her previously dismissed complaint. (Doc. 18). This amended complaint is not permissible as a matter of course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), and Plaintiff has not obtained Defendants' written consent or leave of this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court recognizes that "pro se complaints are to be construed liberally." Stringer v. St. James R-1 School Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2006). A pro se complainant, however, "is not entitled to amend a complaint without making a showing that such an amendment would be able to save an otherwise meritless claim." Plymouth County, Iowa v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1160 (8th Cir. 2014).
This Court has already dismissed Plaintiff's claims on the merits and denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. In this closed case, Plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint virtually identical to her previously dismissed complaint is improper.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2020.
/s/_________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE